Beyer pens post script after sit-down with Wolfson

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I wish I had Mending Fence's pp's to show.

He was running for 25K condition claiming races - and after going to Wolfson, within two months, he's running 2nd by 1 length to English Channel. Than winning a Graded stake race a few weeks later - than a few weeks later coming back in the Grade 2 Dixie and breaking down on the lead causing Albarado to fall off of Einstein.

The problem is that Wolfson never had any of this magic before 2006. His win percentage and ROI stats always looked the same - and he wasn't an elite form reversal guy to say the least.

It's like a baseball player hitting .280 with 25 hr's and 85 RBI's for 12 straight years .. than he goes .375 with 60 hr and 150 RBI's for the next three years in a row.

Brady Anderson, 1996

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Andy Beyer and Marty Wolfson met and talked for an hour last weekend at Gulfstream. Beyer has written a new 'post-script' column to his 'supertrainer' piece of 3 weeks ago. It simultaneously acknowledges Wolfson's horsemanship and clean record while hinting that elements of his personal background would lead one to believe he is fully capable of 'engineering' performances. I found it to be a complex piece of writing with an unclear purpose.


Triumphs of horsemanship or chemistry?
By Andrew Beyer

SUBSCRIPTION REQ'D:
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...7&subs=0&arc=0

HALLANDALE BEACH, Fla. - When I wrote a recent column about "supertrainers" whose feats are so amazing that they raise suspicions about the use of illegal substances, horsemen at Gulfstream Park protested vehemently. A committee of trainers declared that these allegations brought "discredit to the game."

Some of these very trainers have records of drug violations that should make them hesitant to accuse anyone of discrediting the game. But at least one trainer cited in the column does have the standing to voice his objections.

What do you mean you didn't understand the pieces purpose. Beyer wanted to let Marty tell everyone where he buys his magic beans... Now we know its the same place where Jack buys his sheit...

Imagine Mott's face when he learned that Miesques Approval was wearing the wrong size shoes...Perhap he could sue the Blacksmith...How about Todd finding out that he was just racing a sore horse.. Like Benzel nor Pletcher and assistants have no fn clue what a sore horse looks like...lol funny stuff..


Marty hook me up brother I am in pain and feel your healing power!!!! What a Jack ASS...maybe Shug could give him a call what a joke

Originally Posted by Kasept

I found it to be a complex piece of writing with an unclear purpose.

Beyer thinks he cheats.

If someone asks the guy off the record what
do you really believe...
You know he thinks Wolfson cheats.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by freddymo

What do you mean you didn't understand the pieces purpose. Beyer wanted to let Marty tell everyone where he buys his magic beans... Now we know its the same place where Jack buys his sheit...

Imagine Mott's face when he learned that Miesques Approval was wearing the wrong size shoes...Perhap he could sue the Blacksmith...How about Todd finding out that he was just racing a sore horse.. Like Benzel nor Pletcher and assistants have no fn clue what a sore horse looks like...lol funny stuff..


Marty hook me up brother I am in pain and feel your healing power!!!! What a Jack ASS...maybe Shug could give him a call what a joke

lol
now, the doc told my husband he was in the wrong shoes...but he doesn't run faster with the larger size. matter of fact, i can't recall the last time he ran anywhere....

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

Uh, yeah, that's kinda the point!

These guys didn't magically become "super-coaches" by "juicing" their players -- they were good coaches before but their circumstances changed. They moved on to schools with money and recruiting power.

(But, if you prefer -- you can use Rick Pitino at Boston University, a school that has won their conference a number of times. Pitino was 64% at BU, and a couple of years later moved to Kentucky where he won 81%)

Your analogy would be correct if they got a bunch of junior college transfers and slow white guys to win. The troubling thing about Wolfson is the unimaginable improvement of horses with consistent records far below what he gets them to run. The stuff that he says he does to his horses is no different than most good trainers. Epsom salts, magnetic blankets, changing shoes, etc. Oscar used to say it was the shoes too.

Speaking of shoes either Beyer made a typo or Wolfson was misquoted because I have never heard of a racehorse wearing a size 3 shoe. It is impossible for a horse to go from size 3 to size 6, impossible.

[parsixfarms]

Marty Wolfson now proves the wisdom of Cliff Claven's adage that the secret to a successful life is a pair of comfortable shoes: "Socrates wore sandals. Einstein [the scientist] loafers." And now Miesque's Approval a pair of size 6 horseshoes.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before.

Getting better stock certainly isn't something that is to going improve ROI stats.

These are the stats for Larry Jones from 1997 through 2005 ...

246-for-1,193 (20% wins) $2.32 ROI


Here are his stats the last 3+ years ('06-to-present) when the much better stock came to him ..

273-for-1,261 (21% wins) $1.86 ROI


The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 46 points from a GOD LIKE $2.32 down to a rock solid $1.86


Here are the stats for Kiaran McLaughlin from when he just was strating to go out on his own in 1996 through 2003.

176-for-891 (19% wins) $2.21 ROI

From 2004 until today McLaughlin's stats look like this...

496-for-2,459 (20% wins) $1.90 ROI

The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 31 points from a GOD LIKE $2.21 to a rock solid $1.90.

Better horses don't translate into higher ROI's ... but higher ROI's often do translate into evenually getting better horses because owners eventually take notice of the magic and respond to it by supplying said trainers with better stock. Just as bettors take note of the magic and bet there money on these trainers which drives there ROI downward.

And go ahead and just ignore all of the unlogical form reversals ... after all ... Bill Mott doesn't know how to shoe them. Todd Pletcher doesn't know when they're very sore.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Cardus

What, specifically, did you find to be "complex?"

If this column -- and it is a column, not an article, which has a different purpose (and that is not directed at you) -- has "an unclear purpose," then it is a failed column, isn't it? An effective column has a clear purpose, intelligible to all.

Whether it's a success or failure as a a column is up to the individual reader... I find it complex because Beyer simultaneously acknowledges a grudging respect for Wolfson's overall career accomplishment while simultaneously insinuating that there just has to be some illegal explanations for his turnaround work with horses coming to him from elsewhere.

It is also complex as it features a curious, possibly inadvertant, attack on the Wolfson family that will alienate Beyer from the vast pool of admirers and friends of Marty's father, the late Louis Wolfson. In the column, Beyer has chosen to give a very one-sided view of the legendary businessman and philanthropist with this line: His father, Louis Wolfson, was a fabulously successful conglomerate builder and wheeler-dealer until he went to prison for securities fraud.

Beyer knows very well that the story of Affirmed's breeder-owner cannot be summarized, or tinted, as simply as that. It reads as a suggestion that the son should be viewed as summarily guilty of something by association with some kind of reprobate father. That is grossly unfair and frankly, outrageous. The Louis Wolfson 'securities fraud' story is exceedingly involved, and in hindsight has been widely billed, more appropriately, as a governmental persecution. I would imagine that Marty Wolfson will be more upset by this odd cheap shot at his father's legacy than by anything else Beyer has accused him of circuitously.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Getting better stock certainly isn't something that is to going improve ROI stats.

These are the stats for Larry Jones from 1997 through 2005 ...

246-for-1,193 (20% wins) $2.32 ROI


Here are his stats the last 3+ years ('06-to-present) when the much better stock came to him ..

273-for-1,261 (21% wins) $1.86 ROI


The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 46 points from a GOD LIKE $2.32 down to a rock solid $1.86


Here are the stats for Kiaran McLaughlin from when he just was strating to go out on his own in 1996 through 2003.

176-for-891 (19% wins) $2.21 ROI

From 2004 until today McLaughlin's stats look like this...

496-for-2,459 (20% wins) $1.90 ROI

The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 31 points from a GOD LIKE $2.21 to a rock solid $1.90.

Better horses don't translate into higher ROI's ... but higher ROI's often do translate into evenually getting better horses because owners eventually take notice of the magic and respond to it by supplying said trainers with better stock. Just as bettors take note of the magic and bet there money on these trainers which drives there ROI downward.

And go ahead and just ignore all of the unlogical form reversals ... after all ... Bill Mott doesn't know how to shoe them. Todd Pletcher doesn't know when they're very sore.

Drugs- can you breakdown the numbers for Kiaran further ? can you get the ROI for west point horses that he trains only , my guess is that the ROI is extemely lower than his avg as they way overbet their 1sters and don't play them as much in the gimmicks (pic 3's and 4's)

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Sensing my skepticism, Wolfson recalled his younger days when he observed legendary horsemen such as Laz Barrera and Allen Jerkens, who possessed skills that set them far apart from their contemporaries. "What did you think," Wolfson asked me, "when Onion beat Secretariat at Saratoga?"

This, too, is insinuation.

No... it's not actually. Wolfson uses that example, as he did when responsing to Beyer on ATR, in awe and appreciation of Mr. Jerkens whom he holds in the highest regard. His point is that years ago when a horse shocked a race or raised their performance level to new plateaus, there wasn't the disdain and suspicion we have now.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i'm sure if you did a stat check on d wayne he would probably show great stats in the mid 90's and then a big fall off during the last 5 yrs - becuase the good horses got taken away from him

D. Wayne Lukas from '96 through '01 ....

810-for-4,661 (17% wins) $1.37 ROI


D. Wayne Lukas from '07 to present ...

104-for-914 (11% wins) $1.45 ROI


I would agree that the hit with the win percentage reflects a monumental dropoff in quality of stock.

I would also say that his 8 point rise in ROI reflects that he's not as overbet as he was because his reputation as a trainer isn't what it was at the time.

[slotdirt]

Sorry, but did someone say Rick Pitino coached at Boston University? If you're going to make a bad analogy, at least get the facts right. Pitino went from Providence College to an unbelievably bad stint as the Knicks coach and then took over a UK program on probation because nobody else really wanted the job.

[gales0678]

the ROI % changed by 6% , and it could easily have fallen if you take out the 1 bomb he put over at toga last summer (i think it was)

His win % in the time you cover dropped a whopping 35%

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Sorry, but did someone say Rick Pitino coached at Boston University? If you're going to make a bad analogy, at least get the facts right. Pitino went from Providence College to an unbelievably bad stint as the Knicks coach and then took over a UK program on probation because nobody else really wanted the job.

rick pitino

Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1974–1976
1976 Hawaiʻi
Syracuse (asst.)
Boston University
New York Knicks (asst.)
Providence
New York Knicks
Kentucky
Boston Celtics
Louisville

1976–1978
1978–1983
1983–1985
1985–1987
1987–1989
1989–1997
1997–2001
2001–present Hawaiʻi (asst.)
Hawaiʻi
Syracuse (asst.)
Boston University
New York Knicks (asst.)
Providence
New York Knicks
Kentucky
Boston Celtics
Louisville

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the ROI % changed by 6% , and it could easily have fallen if you take out the 1 bomb he put over at toga last summer (i think it was)

His win % in the time you cover dropped a whopping 35%

LOL. Ok, takeout his one 49/1 winner from one sample ... but leave in his MANY wins with bombs like Spain (56/1) Cat Thief, Charismatic, etc. etc. etc. from the other sample. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

LOL. Ok, takeout his one 49/1 winner from one sample ... but leave in his MANY wins with bombs like Spain (56/1) Cat Thief, Charismatic, etc. etc. etc. from the other sample. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

How many 50/1 madiens did he put over from '96 to '01 - come on drugs that point being his madiens were always heavily bet , he won with bombs in big stakes races

but again explain the 35% drop off in acutal win % , was he a magician in the mid 90's or did he simply just have better stock back then??

where beyer's article about him to explain these big % movements

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Sensing my skepticism, Wolfson recalled his younger days when he observed legendary horsemen such as Laz Barrera and Allen Jerkens, who possessed skills that set them far apart from their contemporaries. "What did you think," Wolfson asked me, "when Onion beat Secretariat at Saratoga?"

This, too, is insinuation.

or a grudging acknowledgement that people will question a big effort? or did anyone question it?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by gales0678

How many 50/1 madiens did he put over from '96 to '01 - come on drugs that point being his madiens were always heavily bet , he won with bombs in big stakes races

you're being so stupid I'm almost getting a headache.

In that '07-to- present sample - Lukas is 3-for-77 with first time starters and his ROI is $1.70 - he's a 15% loser (which is the win pool takeout) even with the one 49/1 shot winner included.

And why in the name of God would anyone mention Lukas' name in this thread? No one with an IQ above 50 has ever accused him of being a trainer with an edge.

If you want to think that guys ROI's improve sharply because they're getting better stock - your stupidity is your problem.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by CSC

Perhaps, I should have mentioned that I first heard of this on a national radio show. I highly doubt they would have blurted out something that could be so damaging without a little fact checking first. Look I am a big fan of Tiger's and I dearly hope it isn't true. However if it was proven true one day, I honestly wouldn't be surprised when you look at the way he is able to train, he's the hardest worker, most talented, smartest golfer I have seen. That coupled with the changes in his physique and you wonder? I would also like to stress the hardest worker part, you sound like a golfer Phil, so you know there are alot of aches and pains associated with golf, you also know the baseball swing and the golfswing are very identical motions. There are some simularities here, anyone who says hitting the ball farther without as much effort doesn't improve you as a golfer are kidding themselves.

Po-lease.

The last time I swung a baseball bat, I was hitting a baseball a few feet above the ground, and it was moving. The last time I swung a golf club, the ball was on the ground, and it was still. The only aches and pains I've had with golf is not being able to get-and-down everytime I find a trap.

Tiger's swing featured a locking motion on his left knee, which deteriorated over time and ultimately led to it basically crumbling. Implying that Tiger Woods took steroids is absolutely ridiculous, and there is simply no basis.

The PGA Tour drug tests too. Their version of "cheating" was implied when certain players clubs were believed to be playing with "super clubs" and so they began testing. Tiger's caddie was one of the first guys to bring in the clubs for testing.

It's a shame our society is so jaded that when someone comes along, someone who is smart, devoted and good at what they do, we immediately cry fowl.

Okay, sorry to bring this thread farther off topic.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

you're being so stupid I'm almost getting a headache.

In that '07-to- present sample - Lukas is 3-for-77 with first time starters and his ROI is $1.70 - he's a 15% loser (which is the win pool takeout) even with the one 49/1 shot winner included.

And why in the name of God would anyone mention Lukas' name in this thread? No one with an IQ above 50 has ever accused him of being a trainer with an edge.

If you want to think that guys ROI's improve sharply because they're getting better stock - your stupidity is your problem.

1 more for u drugs

how bout runnig Dutrow's %'s for this GP meet run the win % and roi

then run a second set of numbers and and take out this one's for phil from the numbers